Re: Labor theory of cost

On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:11:25 -0700, radav wrote:

On May 26, 9:12 am, jmh <jmh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:08:06 -0700, Michael L. Coburn in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:





On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:22:16 +0000, Edmund Esterbauer wrote:

Cost under your definition is still subjective because it is derived from
the value an individual attaches to the effort of providing that labour
whether or not you assume land is free. Or to put it slightly differently,
labour results from human action and is therefore subjectively measured by
each individual. The value of the price paid to produce the good is called
cost. Cost is equal to the value attached to the satisfaction that must be
foregone in order to produce the good.

Well.... You have launched the attack exactly as I anticipated. We will
see where we go from here. Unlike the word "value" which in its stand
alone form has all sorts of wild subjectiveness the word cost is a
little more contained. In this case we speak not of the "value" of labor
but in the aristocratic view of such value. This cost/value is well
documented in aggregates and in per capita statistics. It is not subject
to the whim and fancy of an individual laborer/worker or even an
individual neoconomist/aristocrat. Regardless of what the aristocrat or
the laborer might think about it the statistics provide an objective
measurement of the "value" of labor. And that is, in fact, an
objective view of COST from the 20K foot level where it actually matters.

Sure, if you want people just to be cogs in the wheels of
social production then we can ignore the underlying human
activitie and mental processes that produce your "COST from
20K foot level".

That's really not the level it matter at though because
that is not the level that social process is working at.

The claim that the marginal units of labor are equivalent
to the inframarginal units of labor is wrong (even if the
simplified econ 101 theory makes that assumption). Unless
the units of labor across each person who is part of that
production is indentical then you "where it actually matters"
clain fails also.

jmh- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cost is an accounting or bookkeeping concept which is useful for an
individual firm in preparing an income statement but fail to see its
relevance for exploring concepts in political economy.

It has to do with "value theory". If you don't know the cost how can you
know the value????

Contrary to the Marxist concept of "surplus value", the real "surplus
value" in every society is ground rent which is determined by the
differential between the least productive (or desirable) land and all
more productive land. The sizable speculative or anticipated ground
rent which is capitalized into the selling price of land under the
state system of land tenure is vital to a correct understanding of the
process.

Theoretically, the cost of land would be zero were all the ground rent
collected. The cost of land would be nominal if most of the ground
rent were collected. The ultimate question is- to whom does the ground
belong?

Keep Yer pants on. We'll get there soon enough.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... It is axiomatic that natural resources have NO COST. ... "land") are a product of land and labor (labor of course ... This observation holds true for ALL goods, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... whether or not you assume land is free. ... Cost is equal to the value attached to the satisfaction that must be ... In this case we speak not of the "value" of labor ... the cost of land would be zero were all the ground rent ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Capital and Mark Monsons Land
    ... settling its liability to land. ... > ownership, however complex, to give monopoly advantage over labor. ... kept above its cost by all sorts of anti-competetive practices that are ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... Land has no cost. ... I labor LESS for the net personal benefits I ... opposed to Ricardian rent. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_. ... Land has no cost. ... All costs are labor. ... All of the exalted economists take an aristocratic view of the ...
    (sci.econ)